Standing Committee A

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill [Lords]

Clause 8 - Displays

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 38, in page 4, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.—[Tim Loughton.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

David Amess: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (4).

Tim Loughton: Thank you, Mr. Amess, and welcome back to the ultimate sitting of this Committee. It will be an emotional time for us all, and we will be sorry when the guillotine falls at 7 o'clock.
 I was responding to the Minister's not entirely adequate response to the amendment. When Mr. Winterton rose, I was in the middle of reiterating the load of complete nonsense that came from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who contradicted himself when drawing an analogy between jackboots and our contention that we need to tie down as much of the contents of the Bill as possible. 
 Amendments Nos. 38 and 27 address a need for clarity, as I said earlier. It would be much more satisfactory if the issue of the definition of ''display'', as distinct from ''advertisement'', could be resolved in the House of Commons—or, more particularly, in Committee—rather than being left to wide-ranging regulations. However, I fear that that will not be, unless the Minister has a change of heart. By approving the clause without the amendments, we are yet again signing up to the unknown. 
 When the clause was debated in another place, the Minister made it clear that it represents a reserve power that will not necessarily be exercised, and that point was repeated this morning. However, from what the Minister and their lordships have said hitherto, I do not understand how it is possible to avoid the need to define the word ''display'' in regulations, because not to do so leaves shopkeepers and others open to colossal legal uncertainty. We are leaving an enormous amount of territory to be exploited by lawyers if the provisions are changed by regulation, and there are large grey areas in the clause for those at the sharp end who have to deal with the regulations in their places of business. We should be resolving that uncertainty as we debate the Bill, not after it has been enacted. 
 I am aware that we are still woefully behind in our consideration of the Bill, having reached only 
 clause 8—just over a third of the way into the Bill—in this, our last sitting. That is despite our attempts this morning, at Mr. Winterton's instigation, to get a move on. We do not want to leave large quantities of the Bill undebated in Committee, but I fear that that is what will happen. 
 In the interests of trying to speed on into the next clause, and with a degree of protest, I shall not push the amendment to a vote, although I do not think that it has been responded to adequately. We may well want to return to the subject on Report, unless the Minister gives us further assurances before then. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Prohibition of free distributions

David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Before I speak to the amendments, I would welcome your advice. In an attempt to make progress and for other reasons that I shall mention if the chance is available to us, will you give me guidance? Amendment No. 42 is the lead amendment, and it crosses my mind that I might have to move it in order not to lose the others. In the great spirit of co-operation this afternoon, it crossed my mind to not move the amendment. Would that mean that we could not discuss the other amendments that are grouped with it?

David Amess: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss amendments Nos. 39, 43, 40 and 50, he must move amendment No. 42. We could have separate Divisions.

David Wilshire: I seek only your guidance, Mr. Amess, on whether I must move amendment No. 42 to guard against losing the remaining amendments, or whether I may help the Committee by saying that I am happy not to move it. I do not want to say that I do not wish to move amendment No. 42 only to be told that I cannot discuss the other amendments.

David Amess: If the hon. Gentleman does not move amendment No. 42, he cannot discuss amendments Nos. 39, 43, 40 and 50.

David Wilshire: That is exactly the trap into which I thought that I might fall, which is why I asked for your ruling, Mr. Amess. I shall move the amendment with reluctance and a heavy heart because I could write the riposte as a script.
 I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 4, line 28, leave out 'or permits'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 39, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'or effect'.
 No. 43, in page 4, line 36, before 'each', insert 
'all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that'.
 No. 40, in page 4, leave out lines 40 and 41. 
 No. 50, in clause 11, page 6, line 15, leave out 
'or whose effect is to do so'.
 Mr. Wilshire: In order to help the Committee to make progress, I tell the Minister that she need not pour great scorn on me for being in favour of amendment No. 42 or read me many pages of briefing on it because I shall ask leave to withdraw it.
 I plead guilty to drafting amendment No. 42, and displeasure should not fall on any of my hon. Friends because they were not party to it. In my defence, I can say only that I was listening to an especially tedious debate in the Chamber last Friday afternoon while I examined the Bill. Perhaps that frame of mind caused me to draft the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I cannot believe that last Friday's debate was so tedious that it could distract my hon. Friend's attention. The debate was, of course, on the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which is the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). Quite extraordinarily, the hon. Gentleman talked out his own Bill.

David Amess: Order. I ask hon. Members to get back to the matter that we are discussing.

David Wilshire: Absolutely, Mr. Amess. Perhaps I drafted the amendment as it reads because I was so riveted by the debate in the Chamber.
 I turn to amendments Nos. 39 and 50, which make the same point of principle. The amendments would remove ''or effect'' and 
''or whose effect is to do so''
 respectively. The subject has cropped up during our discussion of other clauses, but I thought that it required careful thought with respect to this clause. 
 The title of the clause is ''Prohibition of free distributions''. It states: 
''A person is guilty of an offence if in the course of a business he . . . gives any product or coupon away to the public in the United Kingdom''.
 That is clear enough; for once we have a collection of words that we can clearly understand. However, subsection (1)(b) reads, 
''causes or permits that to happen, and the purpose or effect of giving the product or coupon away is to promote a tobacco product.''
 I accept that, in a court of law, it should be possible to say that the purpose of doing something was to promote tobacco. To establish the purpose of doing something, one must decide one's purpose before acting. If this legislation is put on the statute book, it will be reasonable to say, ''If you have deliberately done something along these lines, you are guilty of an offence.'' I accept that. 
 However, I cannot accept that if you. Mr. Amess, were to do this sort of thing, you would be found guilty, if the effect of what you did was to promote a tobacco product. It would be grossly unfair if you were to be treated like that, because you might have done something innocently and for the best of reasons that was a million miles away from promoting tobacco products. 
 If these two amendments are not passed, the clause will provide that, with hindsight, we can demonstrate that someone has committed an offence, even though he had no means of knowing that it was an offence 
 until afterwards. That is not good legislation. An innocent person does something for the best of motives, and subsequently, because of an effect beyond that person's control, he finds that he have done something that is contrary to this provision. That cannot be right, because he would not have known in advance that that would happen. 
 Therefore, the phrase ''or effect'' should be removed from the clause, and from elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 39 seeks to remove ''or effect'' in one place, and amendment No. 50 seeks to do that in another. I would be interested to learn whether the Minister can justify using hindsight to make a criminal of someone who never intended to be one. If she cannot, she should accept the amendments, or something like them, which she could introduce on Report. I look forward to hearing her comments. 
 Amendment No. 43 seeks to make the legislation more sensible. Subsection (3) lists the circumstances in which an offence is not committed under subsection (1). The third of them states that no offence is committed if, 
''each person to whom it is given—
(i) is engaged in, or employed by, a business which is also part of the tobacco trade, and
(ii) falls within subsection (4)''.
 Therefore, if each person is involved in the trade, that is all right, up to a point. However, common sense must take a hand in this. For example, one might give something away to a group of people. That group could number many thousands of people, if one is talking about the number of people who are engaged in a particular trade, and it would certainly number many hundreds of people, in certain circumstances. However, the clause refers to 
''each person to whom it is given''.
 The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) considers tobacco manufacturers to be wicked people who will take advantage of every opportunity that is offered to them, but even if they are acting with the best will in the world, how can they be certain, if they are having to double check on 1,320 people—to clutch a figure out of thin air—that every one of them is engaged in the trade? That is what the clause demands, because it says ''each person''. Are we to allow situations to arise in which a prosecution can be brought because of the merest of slips that means that one person does not fit? There is no scope here for common sense, which is why amendment No. 43 proposes to insert 
''all reasonable steps are to be taken to ensure that'' 
each person fits. That is a much more practical, sensible and realistic way in which to draft legislation. Given the number of people who might be involved and the scope for misunderstanding and genuine error, we should be looking for best endeavours. That is realistic. 
 I have a slight difficulty with amendment No. 40. On the original list of amendments, it proposed the deletion of ''lines 41 and 42''. Someone has spotted the point that I was going to make, and it has now been 
 changed to ''lines 40 and 41''. If anyone is working on the old list on which I was working, that is not what we are discussing; we are discussing leaving out lines 40 and 41. 
 The clause refers to when 
''the product or coupon is given to each such person in his capacity as such a person.''
 The same argument applies as to amendment No. 43. It relates to the phrase 
''given to each such person''.
 Whether the number of such people is 1,000 or several thousand, those who take shelter in that defence must be able to show that they gave to each such person. 
 Again, that seems to fly in the face of common sense. Why does it matter? If the person involved took all reasonable steps to ensure that the people involved were engaged in the trade, that should be adequate. If they can prove that they did so, does it matter whether ultimately each such person was working in that capacity? If they miss one person, rather like if they give to one person too many, which was my first argument—that is, if there are 1,230 and they give to only 1,229—they have, as I understand it, lost their defence under the clause. I should be grateful to hear why the Minister believes that the provision is necessary and that it is not necessary to suggest another formula of words that would deal with the issue in a much more realistic and practical way. 
 I have already spoken to amendment No. 50, which deals with effect rather than purpose, and I shall not repeat myself. However, some substantial issues are involved and I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on them before we decide whether to press any of the amendments to a Division.

Jim Murphy: I am delighted to catch your eye, Mr. Amess. I shall comment briefly on the Opposition amendments.
 I mentioned this issue on Second Reading, when I strongly welcomed the fact that coupons and the free distribution referred to in the Bill will be prohibited. I declared an interest then, and I declare another now. Unbeknown to me at the time of Second Reading, for a good period of her life my mother helped stock cigarettes into cartons and boxes in the cigarette processing plant in Glasgow. I have declared my interest and made more confessions. On Second Reading, I admitted to having smoked and to a dubious taste in music. My family connection with the industry only strengthens my support for the action that the Government are taking in the clause. 
 We have discussed purpose and effect. The tobacco industry and Opposition Members who represent its interests will claim that the purpose of coupons and free distribution is to encourage brand loyalty and to thank customers for purchasing their products. That may be the stated purpose, but the effect is entirely different. We are all aware—Conservative Members should acknowledge this—that the effect is to encourage and maintain the smoker's addiction. The industry also aims to entice additional purchases. Surely, everyone would accept that. On Second Reading, I talked about the effect of such coupons, 
 which is to encourage smokers—such as those in my own family—to purchase a cheap set of six whisky glasses for £100 worth of cigarettes. I have since been given a copy of the Benson and Hedges gratis magazine, which describes in greater detail the effect and purpose of coupons. A cursory glance shows that the effect of coupons is not only to encourage maintenance of the addiction and additional purchases of cigarettes; the magazine shows the extent to which tobacco companies use coupons to reward the smoker's addiction through the distribution of supposedly free gifts. Such gifts include a child's swing, of all things: smoke cigarettes and get a free swing for your child. The fact is that one would have to purchase £6,000 worth of cigarettes to receive a supposedly ''free'' child's swing. The aim is to encourage the smoker to purchase additional cigarettes. In return for a £6,000 investment in his addiction, a smoker could feel a warm glow—as well as blocked lungs—by providing his child with a nice, little play swing. That is an additional effect of coupons. If a smoker spends over £200 on cigarettes, he can be rewarded with a ''my little honey doll''. What is the purpose of such a gift?

David Wilshire: My mind was beginning to wander again and I might have said something unfortunate. Will the hon. Gentleman say what the thing is?

Jim Murphy: Members of the Committee may not be aware that the hon. Member for Spelthorne and I spent more than a week cooped up in a cabin on a Royal Navy frigate. We discussed such issues, among other things. It is fairly clear that it is a little doll, given in return for spending hundreds of pounds on tobacco products, polluting the household, encouraging passive smoking and passive contraction of diseases. By way of compensation, one can reward a child with a little squeezy doll.
 I am identifying the purpose and effect of coupon programmes. A travel cot can be purchased with coupons, although one would have to spend over £2,000 on cigarettes to receive one.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has said and I totally support his argument. Does he agree that one of the effects is not only to maintain the addiction, but that the smoker would buy as many cigarettes as possible, so that he may receive the child's swing or little honey doll even sooner, perhaps this year rather than next?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is correct. Smokers may do their shopping by tobacco coupons in time for Christmas gifts. He is right to draw attention to the fact that there are deadlines on some of the offers. To qualify for the supposed special offer, one must purchase a certain quantity of cigarettes by a certain deadline. The purpose and effect of such an offer would be an increased consumption of tobacco products within a certain time.

Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting contribution, but I am sure that he does not seriously think that people who are stupid enough to smoke are also stupid enough not to realise that they could buy lots of swings or honey dolls outright with the money that they would have to spend on cigarettes.
 Also, is it not a fact that smoking diminishes a smoker's sperm count and affects fertility? That means that smokers are rather less likely to exchange vouchers for a carrycot or whatever, because they could not have children in the first place.

Jim Murphy: I am not in a position to question the hon. Gentleman's understanding of science or human biology, but I am sensible enough to know that if someone is trying to purchase a swing for a child, they already have a child, and sperm count is not uppermost in their mind.
 Another example of the enormous pressure and incentives used to increase consumption of tobacco comes from the same wonderful colour brochure. If one spends more than £2,500 smoking more than 10,000 cigarettes, one qualifies for a cardiovascular workout mini-step. How remarkable.

David Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman has shared a delicious piece of irony with us. I would like more information. I have never seen such coupons. I do not know how a smoker might get hold of them, where they might be found and how widely distributed they are. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us the scale of the problem that he is describing?

Jim Murphy: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that such coupons are a problem, and I anticipate him voting with us if the issue is forced to a Division.
 Coupons are regularly found inside packets of cigarettes. I shall show the hon. Gentleman the range of brands that contain them in their boxes. Cigarette package frontages show the brands to which one would have to be loyal in order to receive the gifts. They are a widely used incentive, the effect of which is to encourage greater levels of smoking. The coupons are available to many families throughout the country, including mine. They are a widely used marketing tool that encourages a degree of brand loyalty and—more importantly for the purposes of the Committee—increased smoking and addiction.

David Ruffley: I am a nearly reformed smoker who smoked both Silk Cut and Marlboro Lights cigarettes, and I cannot recall coming across any of the coupons that the hon. Gentleman describes. I am not making a judgment about the merits of such coupons; I am fascinated by what he says. However, given my experiences, it is not clear to me that coupons are widespread. That is why I intervened earlier. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could elucidate how many smokers might be affected by the regime.

Jim Murphy: I have a letter from Benson and Hedges about its coupon regime. As a non-smoker, I am well aware that Benson and Hedges is a considerable market player. My father did not, and does not, smoke Benson and Hedges, but there are coupons in the cigarettes that he purchases, too. I gather that they are widespread, and their effect is to encourage and increase consumption of tobacco products. I identified that example of incentives to highlight a callous way of encouraging greater consumption.
 I should like to mention free distribution. I am a teetotal non-smoking vegetarian, but I nevertheless occasionally visit Glasgow pubs with my wife and friends. Like many people, I am often confronted by usually younger ladies, who offer to swap the contents of a cigarette packet for a full packet of an alternative brand. The effect of that free distribution is not only to switch brand loyalty, but to increase the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, the level of addiction to specific tobacco products. I do not know what happens to the cigarettes one hands in—the one or two in the packet that one takes to the pub. However, instead of purchasing a packet of 20, one swaps the cigarettes that one has left for a brand new packet of 20 and ends up smoking 38 or 39 cigarettes. The aim is not to promote brand switching but to increase consumption. 
 In my experience, there are only two conditions for free distribution. One is the compulsory adding of one's name to a database to receive subsequent mailings and advertising, and the other is increasing one's consumption by swapping a small number of cigarettes for a full packet. 
 Therefore, I welcome the clause as drafted not only for its purpose, but in respect of its effect. Opposition Members who claim to fear an excessive use of retrospective legal judgment should see that there is a clear legal defence within clause 9(5). I am surprised that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) did not allude to it in full. I welcome the clause and oppose the amendments because of the purpose of the tobacco industry and the effect of free distribution and widely distributed coupons.

Yvette Cooper: There are a series of amendments to clause 9, most of which relate to free distribution, although one refers to brand sharing. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) did not speak to amendment No. 42 and I understand that he intends to withdraw it, so unless he indicates otherwise, I shall not speak against it.
 The effect of amendment No. 39 would be that any of the offences in clause 9 involving free distributions would be permitted only if the purpose of the gift is to promote a tobacco product, and not when the effect is to do so. I oppose the amendment because the line that we have taken consistently throughout the Bill is that it must cover cases involving purpose and effect. We should not confine the Bill to purpose. We should take a consistent approach in clause 9 and cover advertisements and promotions that are either intended to promote a tobacco product or have the effect of doing so. 
 The Bill provides clear defences to protect people when their connection with the promotion could be said to be blameless. Clause 9(5) provides that 
''A person does not commit an offence . . .
(b) where it is alleged that the effect of giving the product or coupon away was to promote a tobacco product, if he could not reasonably have foreseen that that would be its effect.''
 If they could not reasonably have foreseen it, they have a defence under the Bill. In such circumstances, because of the burden of proof, the prosecution would first have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the effect of the distribution was to promote a tobacco product. Secondly, if defendants put forward credible evidence claiming that they could not reasonably have foreseen the effect, the prosecution would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they could have. The defence is already in the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 43 seeks to provide that 
''all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that''
 the product or coupon reaches the particular people permitted under clause 9(4). I have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, but I believe that it is not appropriate and ask the Committee to reject it. Free gifts can be a powerful tool in tobacco companies' armouries, and gift schemes can be used to tempt lower-income smokers. The advertising agency used by Gallaher provided a document to the Health Committee in 1999 that stated: 
''Who are we talking to: Glasgow's smokers—they smoke because they enjoy it. They also love the gift scheme, with over 50 per cent. of the club franchise unemployed this probably explains its popularity''.
 Clearly, an attempt is made to use free gifts, promotions and coupons to encourage smoking and promote tobacco products. 
 The Bill allows free gifts in some circumstances for the purposes of the tobacco trade. Paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (3) list the circumstances and include the provision that each person who receives the gift must be engaged in the trade. 
 The amendment would weaken subsection (3) such that people would not be liable if they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the gifts were received only by the person in the trade. I have some sympathy with that intention, but the company responsible should take some responsibility for ensuring that the free gifts sent out reach the right people. 
 We are allowing an exemption from the comprehensive ban in particular circumstances. It should not become an excuse for simply having a huge mailing list that is updated once every 12 months, simply to check, and using it to promote a product to a large number of people without being clear that those people are part of the tobacco trade and involved in the right sort of decisions and decision-making positions in the tobacco trade. It is right that the provision is clearly drawn to ensure that it does not become subject to abuse. Sufficient exemption has been given to carry on the trade with no detrimental effects. 
 Amendment No. 40 would delete subsection (3)(d), which provides that the product or coupon must be given to each such person in their capacity as a person involved in the trade, as set out in the rest of the clause. The provision distinguishes between giving to people as part of their job a free distribution such as a new cigar that they want to be sold in specialist tobacconists, for example, and allowing people simply to give everyone on the list free products for their own use and effectively targeting them as smokers or 
 potential smokers, as opposed to contacting them in their capacity as part of the tobacco trade. 
 Amendment No. 50 relates to the principle of removing effect from the Bill in relation to brand sharing. Brand sharing is especially important, and we shall have an opportunity to discuss it later. 
 Documents in the public domain reveal how the tobacco industry reacted many years ago to the threat of increasing restrictions on direct advertising by developing a strategy to use its brands on other products, such as Marlboro Classic clothing. The tobacco brand receives extra advertising that is free of the advertising restrictions placed on tobacco brands, such as the presence of a health warning. Recent research concluded that: 
''when other variables that are known to be associated with smoking are controlled for, awareness of coupon schemes and brandstretching were both associated with the greater possibility of being a current smoker''.
 It is important to keep effect in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) made clear the impact that tobacco promotion through coupons and free distribution can have and the rather dubious links between the promotion and the sorts of gifts on offer. If we removed effect from the Bill and left only purpose, the tobacco company could argue that the purpose was to make money from other goods, or related to brand loyalty, for example, and it might be difficult for the prosecution to prove an additional purpose beyond reasonable doubt, but the effect might be screamingly obvious to everyone. It might be to promote a tobacco product. We must not permit through brand sharing promotions that clearly have the effect of promoting a tobacco product, because it could be argued that there may be alternative purposes. To remove the word ''effect'' from the clause would weaken it. Defences are in place; it is right that they are, but it would be wrong to accept the amendments. The Government reject amendments Nos. 42, 39, 43, 40 and 50.

David Wilshire: What a change takes place in Committee after a good lunch. Had we received such a response from the Minister earlier, we would probably have made more progress. Having touched on the matter of ''effect'' many times in previous sittings, at last we have heard a coherent argument why the word should stay in the clause.
 Lunchtime has had such a calming influence. The dogs are off the leash on the Opposition Benches and can contribute to the debate. I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Eastwood. It makes a refreshing change to listen to a different voice, even if I could not understand what he meant by ''little honey doll''. If the hon. Gentleman could listen to himself with an English ear, he might realise why I was confused and asked him to explain what he meant. However, as soon as I knew that it was a little honey doll, all my anxieties went away. 
 Some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred should be dealt with in the clause stand part debates. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) wants to make some general remarks about the clause, so I shall not broaden this debate; otherwise you, 
 Mr. Amess, may rule that we cannot have a clause stand part debate—and that would never do. The hon. Member for Eastwood seemed to doubt whether I was in favour of banning coupons. I hope that, by now, he knows that I think that the Bill is an abuse of human rights, but if the Government are determined to ban tobacco advertising, I am entirely with him that it is right to catch coupons. There is no disagreement between us, once we accept the principle of what the Bill will achieve. It is the principle with which I am in disagreement. 
 The hon. Gentleman focused his remarks on a swing for the kiddiewinkies, if one smoked £6,000 worth of tobacco. If someone smoked that amount of cigarettes, he would not have the puff left in him to push the swing, which made me wonder why that particular item was in the catalogue. I said earlier that I am guilty of being naïve because I take everyone at face value. I have to plead guilty of other things, too, one being that I am a sensitive soul. When the hon. Gentleman said that he and I spent a week cooped up together, my sensitive nature made me decide that an explanation was necessary. We were on HMS Newcastle as part of the armed forces scheme. It was an enjoyable time and all I can say, on reflection, is that despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a non-smoking, teetotal vegetarian, he is good company. 
 Of all the ingenious arguments that have been advanced during the past four sittings, to have introduced a debate about sperm count was even beyond my wildest expectations of what could be discussed when referring to tobacco advertising. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on doing just that. I learn something new every day to add to my armoury of debating skills. 
 In order to spare my blushes—I hope—the Minister kindly said that she would not speak against amendment No. 42. I am grateful for that and I do not intend to provoke her. 
 As I said, I listened carefully to the response to amendments Nos. 39 and 50, and I heard a coherent argument on why there should be the consistency of keeping the word ''effect'' in the Bill. I accept that, especially because the Minister pointed out that the clause contains defences such as 
''if he could not reasonably have foreseen''.
 That is a safeguard, and I shall not press the amendments. 
 I found it curious that the Minister prayed in aid the concept of ''not reasonably have foreseen''. That means that being reasonable is a defence for such matters. However, when the hon. Lady addressed amendment No. 43, which would introduce the concept of ''reasonable steps'', it was curious that she was pleased about the use of reasonableness in one context, but said that that amendment was unreasonable. As consistency throughout the Bill and reasonableness are good ideas, surely that should lead 
 her to accept the amendment, especially because she said that she has some sympathy with its intentions. 
 The Minister seems to accept that I am barking up the right tree on this occasion—I may be permanently barking. If she does not like my wording or the way in which I have introduced the concept of reasonableness, which is the concept that she believes is right in other contexts, I hope that she will table amendments on Report that will allow her to say that the Bill is more consistent. 
 The Minister's justification for rejecting the amendment was that companies should take responsibility for their actions because the consequences are so serious. All members of the Committee would agree that companies must act reasonably and responsibly. My amendment does not say in any way that a company does not have to accept responsibility. It says exactly the opposite; the company must take all reasonable steps, and we expect a responsible company to do that. Accepting the amendment would not undermine a company's requirement to be sensible. 
 I do not believe that we are as far apart on the subject as it might appear. I said that I do not wish to press amendment No. 42, and I suspect that if I withdraw it, the other amendments will fall. If that is the case, I am entirely content. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (2).

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 28, in page 5, line 18, at end insert—
'(6A) For the purposes of this section, a coupon shall not be deemed to have the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product if it only provides for the product with which it is packed or sent to be sold at a discount on a single subsequent purchase of that product.'.
 No. 44, in page 5, line 19, leave out subsections (7), (8) and (9).

Tim Loughton: The amendments explore a similar theme. I shall major on amendment No. 28, although I shall mention amendment No. 41 first.
 Amendment No. 41 would remove subsection (2), which states: 
''It does not matter whether the product or coupon accompanies something else, or is given away separately.''
 The subsection is unnecessary because one must differentiate between in-pack and on-pack offers. In-pack offers are coupons contained inside a packet of cigarettes and on-pack offers advertise money off on the wrapping of the packet or group of packets. 
 Amendment No. 28 exempts coupons that allude only to the product in which they are contained. A coupon in a cigarette pack that offers 10p off a subsequent purchase of a pack of that brand of cigarettes does not promote greater expenditure; it merely gives a reward for loyalty, if a customer buys another packet of the same brand. 
 When manufacturers wish to make special price offerings, three principal options are available to them: 
 first, revised terms to wholesalers and retailers that enable them to make special price offerings to their customers; secondly, on-pack discount price marking and pricing flashes offering, for example, 10p off; and thirdly, in-pack price offerings, such as the coupon option that I have mentioned. 
 There can be no guarantee for the owner of the brand and the smoker that revised price terms for the trade will automatically filter through to the consumer, as intended. Packets of the same brand of cigarettes can be—and are—sold at widely varying prices at different outlets. 
 With regard to the Government's intentions, on-pack price offers such as price flashes are less desirable than discreet in-pack price offers, such as coupons that offer a price reduction on a single subsequent purchase of the product. Therefore, we are going for the lesser of available evils, which will have a beneficial effect. Such price offers are directed only at existing smokers, and they are noticed only by them. They are of interest only to them. Therefore, they will not entice non-smoking adults—or children—to take up the filthy habit. They are most unlikely to be of an order that will encourage existing smokers to smoke more, or to continue to smoke. We are talking about offers such as 10p off a subsequent packet of cigarettes, rather than £100 off a subsequent 25 packs, or whatever. 
 I have no doubt that the Minister will say that even in-pack offers will have the effect of promoting a tobacco product, but I ask her to consider the most important point, which is whether the measure is proportionate. With regard to many of the amendments that we have addressed this morning, she has responded by saying that the existing legislation is proportionate. Will she apply that principle to what is being proposed now? In the context of the Bill in general, it is an important principle, but it should be applied to the provisions of this clause in particular. Otherwise, the issue that the amendment addresses will be contested later in the courts. It is a probing amendment that proposes a limited exemption. 
 Amendment No. 44 seeks to delete subsections (7) to (9). It is a consequential amendment. The subsections should be deleted if the limited forms of coupons that amendment No. 28 proposes are allowed. 
 There will always be some price-cutting promotion, and our greatest fear is that the absence of advertising and promotion could lead to wholesale price-cutting, which would result in a greater increase in smoking. We are trying to limit and cap the effects of any promotions. The proposed legislation prohibits direct marketing schemes but, in the interests of proportionality, it will go too far by interfering with suppliers' freedom to make special price offers directly to existing smokers of a particular brand of cigarettes. 
 Amendments Nos. 41, 28 and 44 are relatively modest and proportionate probing amendments, to which I would like the Minister to respond. I do not think that they take away from the Government's intentions. 
 Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I reinforce the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about amendment No. 41 by inviting the Minister to consider subsection (1), which states:
''A person is guilty of an offence if in the course of business he—
(a) gives any product . . . away''.
 My emphasis is on ''any''. In light of that all-embracing word, surely it follows logically that subsection (2), which the amendment would delete, is redundant. Given the wording of subsection (1)(a), I shall be surprised if the Minister can mount an effective argument to say that subsection (2) is needed. 
 On amendment No. 28, I emphasise that an in-pack coupon is clearly directed not at the general public, but the smoker. It is therefore entirely different in kind from the general advertisements that the Government seek to ban. I may argue with the Government about the effects of that ban, but surely they should acknowledge that, within their own terms of reference, an in-pack coupon or token does not amount to advertising.

Yvette Cooper: Amendment No. 41 would omit subsection (2), which makes it clear that a product or coupon given away with something else will be caught under the Bill. Subsection (2) ensures that there is no doubt that the offence set out in subsection 1(a) includes coupons given away, either with something or separately. Subsection (2) should remain in the Bill, and I oppose the amendment.

Andrew Hunter: What is the deficiency of the wording in subsection (1)(a), which says
''gives any product or coupon away''?

Yvette Cooper: Subsection (2) is purely about providing clarification, so that no one can argue in court that something given away as part of another gift—in a free newspaper, for example—would not be covered by the Bill. The intention of the ban is clear in subsection (1); subsection (2) only clarifies, but it is right to include it to prevent mistaken legal defences being mounted.
 Amendment No. 28 would allow coupons that give a discount on the next packet. Although manufacturers will not be able to include coupons for honey dolls, children's swings or other products, they may, if the amendment is accepted, include coupons that allow purchasers to buy another packet of cigarettes at a discount. In the end, the effect of the two types of coupon is the same. Whether the inducement to keep buying the same brand for extra coupons is a honey doll or carry cot, or whether it takes the form of a coupon that gives 50p, 10p or whatever off the price of the next packet, the effect is to get the smoker to buy the next packet of cigarettes. 
 Tobacco companies may argue that they are promoting brand loyalty, but they are also promoting the purchase of the next packet of cigarettes. It is true that the impact might be aimed at existing smokers but, as 70 per cent. of smokers say that they want to give up, we should be trying to protect them. It is right that those who want to give up should not be continually bombarded with new 
 inducements to buy the next packet of cigarettes. That is why I reject amendment No. 28. 
 Amendment No. 44 would remove the power to make the regulations that ban distributions made for a nominal sum or at a substantial discount. That is one of the sets of regulations that, at this stage, we anticipate need not to be laid. However, it is right that we have such powers should abuses arise. An obvious way of avoiding the problem of not being able to send out free distributions would be to say, ''All right, we will distribute a packet of cigarettes for 10p, or a gift such as honey doll for 20p.'' We have the regulation-making power in place as a way round the free distribution prohibition. To remove that regulation-making power—which is a reserve power—would open a potential loophole that would undermine the entire of clause 9. That is why I oppose the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for her response, although I fear that some of the regular arguments to which she resorts—such as the use of ''bombarded''—were creeping in.
 With regard to amendment No. 44, the hon. Lady said that there was no intention to use the power, but it should be included just in case. That argument is wearing a little thin. I take her point about amendment No. 41 going against the clarifying nature of that part of the clause. However, I do not buy the argument that a coupon—not, as she said, coupons—that offers a reduced price for the next packet of the same brand of cigarettes would have a significant effect on the habits of a particular smoker. He is already dedicated to smoking, by continuing to do so, and I do not think that a coupon constitutes 'bombarding' him. The Minister should give greater credibility to the brand loyalty argument, although I see why she does not want to do that. 
 Offering a 10p or 50p discount is different from the offer of an inducement to become the proud owner of a honey doll or carry cot, or—as I believe the hon. Member for Eastwood mentioned—to take advantage of a cardio-vascular work-out. I think that we will continue to agree to disagree on that issue, and I do not think that we will make any further progress on the amendment. 
 I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Wilshire: I shall try not to detain the Committee for long. I am worried that clause 9 provides yet more regulating power, despite the fact that the Minister says that she has no need to use it. Subsections (7) to (9) were the subjects of an amendment, and they add to my collection of doubts about what it is that we are doing. Subsection (7) states:
''The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for this section to apply''.
 Subsection (8) states that the regulations 
''must provide for the meaning of 'substantial discount'''.
 Curiously, we were told before lunch that it was proper to say that regulations ''may'' provide for a definition. Suddenly, it is a good idea that they ''must'' provide. Before lunch, we had a wonderful argument about why we did not need ''must''. Now, without a comment, we are asked to agree to ''must''. Where is the consistency throughout the Bill that was trumpeted in an earlier debate? 
 Consistency suggests that, if references are made to the need for definitions, one either ''may'' or ''must'' make them. One cannot pick and choose and say, ''You may make those but you must make the others'' without some reason being given. 
 The clause states that 
''the regulations must provide for the meaning of 'substantial discount'''.{**W4**} 
The mind boggles at what ''substantial discount'' might mean. It might simply be one person's opinion, and to have an order-making provision that involves somebody defining ''substantial'' is an abuse of the process of Parliament. 
 Clause 9(9) states that the regulations would apply 
''with such modifications . . . specified in the regulations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.''{**W4**} 
Methinks that Henry VIII is back again. The clause is saying, ''We can have any definitions that we like by order, and, having made them, we can vary them.'' Consistency, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law no longer matter to the Government. The Minister owes us an explanation for continuing to trample over the things that we hold precious in this country.

Andrew Hunter: I shall be extremely brief. I have a technical drafting point to make and I do not expect the Minister to reply to it now, although she may take it on board. The offence under clause 9 is defined in subsection (1). Subsection (3) refers to no offence being committed under subsection (1). However, subsection (5) refers to the offence being committed ''under this section'', rather than ''under subsection (1)''. For the sake of consistency, purely in drafting, should subsection (5) not read ''under subsection (1)''?

Tim Loughton: To be consistent, and in the interests of showing that the Opposition have done their homework and scrutinised every word of the Bill, I refer the Minister to the top of page 5, line 2, which refers to
''the purchase of tobacco procucts''.{**W4**} 
I noticed the spelling mistake some time ago, as one would expect from the amount of scrutiny Opposition Members have given the Bill. When I tried to table an amendment to correct it, I was told that it would require the Bill to go back to the House of Lords and then be reconsidered by the Committee, which would take up considerable parliamentary time. 
 Keen that we are to ensure that the Bill makes progress to its next stage of parliamentary consideration, we do not wish to sabotage it by pushing a point about a single spelling error. I do not know what processes are now available to the Minister 
 to ensure that we do not have a Bill that contains a glaring spelling error. I draw her attention to it out of good will and hopefulness. No doubt, she will get her officials on the case PDQ. 
 Subsection (1)(a) reads, 
''gives any product or coupon away to the public in the United Kingdom''.
 When does a member of the public cease to be a member of the public? I am thinking of a private club, of whatever description for whatever activities may go on in such a club. Do members of such a club, who could see coupons or special offers while within the confines of that club acting as private members in private, still constitute members of the public? It is not an entirely flippant point, because being within a private club can sometimes allow for certain entitlements. 
 Subsection (1) continues: 
''the purpose or effect of giving the product or coupon away is to promote a tobacco product.''
 My wife is a keen collector of Tesco reward points. She swaps them not for little honey doll whatsits or carrycots, but for money-off vouchers for groceries. In theory, such groceries may include purchases from the tobacco counter of Tesco. If those vouchers were used to purchase cigarettes, they could be deemed to have the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product. Unless a specific exclusion were made that a money-off voucher could not be used to purchase tobacco—and perhaps alcohol—it would be legitimate for my wife to use her voucher to buy cigarettes, cigars or any other tobacco product, although that is unlikely because she does not smoke, unlike me. Has the Minister considered whether supermarkets such as Tesco and other shops that run reward schemes might fall foul of the clause? Will it be necessary for supermarkets to include exemptions for products against which their money-off vouchers may not be used? 
 Those couple of serious points show how people could unintentionally fall foul of the Bill's terminology.

Yvette Cooper: I shall address substantial discount and the use of the word ''must''. It is right that the Bill uses the word ''must'' because there could be a need to set out regulations on products and coupons that are available for a nominal sum or at a substantial discount. Substantial discount is a relative concept and may mean different things to different people. Therefore, it is right that the regulations must define substantial discount, whatever the circumstances or worries that they address.
 In another place, Lord Filkin said that substantial discount is 
''a relative concept and may mean different things . . . For example, many people would see £1,000 as a substantial sum, but if it was the discount off a car costing £50,000 it might not be seen as a substantial discount''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 1266–67.]
 Points were made about the definition of ''public''. The word is defined in clause 21, and the public include people in private members' clubs, but not members of a family. A person who gave a product or coupon to his relations would not be giving it to the 
 public, but a person who gave such an item to a member of a private members' club might. 
 I take the point about the spelling error and the drafting, which was raised by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I shall take up those points with the parliamentary draftsmen and ensure that they are resolved and that Parliament's intention is clear—whether on ''procucts'' or ''products'', as the spelling error sets out. 
 The test on Tesco vouchers is clear. Anyone who gives away a product or coupon with the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product will be caught. Each case will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, coupons that are aimed at promoting Tesco or Sainsbury's are unlikely to be interpreted as promoting a tobacco product. In the end, it will be a matter of fact or an individual case having to be decided in that respect.

Tim Loughton: The Minister says that the issue is not entirely clear, but would not a safer way to get round the problem be to add an extra provision to the Bill to the effect that any coupons or vouchers would specifically have to mention the tobacco products. If they did not, they would not fall foul of the clause. Given what the hon. Lady said, a voucher given by Tesco for its products, which could include tobacco products, would be caught by the Bill.

Yvette Cooper: I am not sure that that is the case. I shall happily consider the matter further before we discuss the Bill on Report. Tesco should be allowed to promote its business, nevertheless the intention behind the clause is to prevent the promotion of a tobacco product. I shall examine whether further amendments need to be made to the clause, but I think that that is highly unlikely. I do not believe that the Bill would stop coupons and promotions by Tesco and other companies that use free distributions in that respect.
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Prohibition of sponsorship

David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 5, line 35, after 'services', insert
', support for a political party,'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 46, in page 5, line 43, at end insert—
'(c) these defences shall not be available to a political party.'.
 No. 47, in page 5, line 46, at end insert— 
'(5) The defence referred to in subsection (4) shall not be available to a political party'.
 No. 71, in clause 20, page 11, line 2, at end insert 
', provided that no party to such a sponsorship agreement has made a donation to a political party within the last 10 years.'.

David Wilshire: We come now to sponsorship. It gives me no pleasure to speak to the amendments. They would not have been necessary had it not been for the fact that, within a matter of weeks—or, at most,
 months—after the Government came into power in 1997, their first outbreak of sleaze came to light. It concerned a £1 million donation from the Formula 1 racing boss to the Labour Government and the promise of a further £1 million that occurred—surprise, surprise—at that moment of discussions between Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Blair, which resulted in Formula 1 motor racing being exempted from the then proposals to ban tobacco advertising.
 From the very earliest moments of the Government, sleaze of that sort has surrounded the debate on tobacco advertising. It is extraordinary that they have made no attempt to redeem themselves and to live up to the promise that they made before the election of being whiter than white and having nothing to do with sleaze. They could so easily have taken the opportunity to put into the clause proof that they were at least contrite for the bribes that they were prepared to take and the actions that would follow. 
 Given that the Government are not willing to clean up their act, Conservative Members will try to do it for them. If they resist any one of the amendments, we will have more proof that they are not willing to clean up their act. If they have nothing to hide and no intentions of taking backhanders and sleazy money from Formula 1 people, for example, they will support us. The amendments are attempts to prevent such action from happening again. However, they were a sleazy Government from the beginning; they are a sleazy Government now and my guess is that they will continue to be so until they are thrown out of office.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has extensive knowledge of recent parliamentary history. Will he remind the Committee which Government introduced the great openness that we are now experiencing in respect of political donations for the funding of political parties?

David Amess: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne will resist temptation and not respond to such a question. It has nothing to do with the debate.

David Wilshire: I may well be found in the Stranger's bar later on, where perhaps we could continue the discussion. I would be happy to do that. However, at present, I accept your ruling, Mr. Amess, because the only allegations of sleaze and nastiness that are before the Committee relate to tobacco advertising. I shall confine myself to speaking about the amendments.
 Amendment No. 45 is necessary. It refers to subsection (2), which tries to define a sponsorship agreement. I find it interesting that sometimes the Bill tries to define something, and on other occasions it does not, and I cannot help wondering why it should wish to do so in this instance. Perhaps the Government are trying to create loopholes for their friends, so that more money can roll into their coffers. The Bill specifies that a sponsorship agreement involves the making of a contribution, but it does not say to whom that contribution must be made. That is curious. 
 It is possible that someone who would benefit from a loophole with regard to the ability to advertise 
 tobacco does not make a contribution, either in money or in kind, to—for instance—the racing cars carrying cigarette advertisements that drive around the Formula 1 circuits, because the Bill simply states, ''makes a contribution''. On the exemption for motor racing, it could be argued that the £1 million bung that was given to the Labour party was not given to anybody. That money was not directly handed over as a sponsorship agreement, but was given to a third party. So the argument goes thus: ''I—whoever I am—sponsor Formula 1 racing. Formula 1 cars carry my adverts. The Government exempt Formula 1 racing, and then I give the Government £1 million. Therefore, I have not paid anything by way of sponsorship, but the Labour party's coffers contain an extra £1 million, and it has a promise of another £1 million.'' 
 Unless this part of this clause is tidied up, the Labour party might have a nice little loophole that would enable such activities to go on happily for forever and a day. How many more £1 million are lurking around somewhere? How many more little bits of legislation that have come before this House since 1997 have been passed in such a way as to allow nice loopholes for more money to sail into Millbank towers to fund the Labour party?

David Ruffley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ventilating the ambiguity in line 33 of page 5. Has he ever before come across draftsmanship that uses phrases such as,
''makes a contribution towards something''?
 That is strange language. It jars with me, as a Parliamentarian. Does it jar with him? Has he seen anything as sloppily drafted as that, during his time in the House of Commons?

David Wilshire: No, I have not. However, it strikes me as quite an accurate description of a contribution of £1 million being made to the coffers of the Labour party—which, I gather, is what happened. What appears to be sloppy drafting is, in fact, an accurate description of the sorts of sleaze and corruption that have come to light since 1997.

David Ruffley: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that this is not incompetent draftsmanship, but a deliberate attempt to create a loophole that might be exploited by the Labour party?

David Wilshire: I cannot claim to be able to see inside the minds of the people who drafted this legislation. I am merely suggesting that the sloppy drafting could be interpreted in that way. The Minister might wish to answer my hon. Friend's question, but I cannot do that, because I am not a clairvoyant. I can only say that the drafting is sloppy, and that that invites the explanation that it is deliberately sloppy for the reason that I have suggested. One of the two possible answers to my hon. Friend's question is correct and, in due course, the Minister will no doubt tell us which is the right one.
 Amendment No. 46 refers to subsection (3) and says that there will be defences against the allegations in the Bill. We have been round this course before, and are not surprised to learn that those defences relate to not knowing the purpose of the payment or what its effects will be. That invites us to get into a discussion of the 
 purpose of bungs to political parties. The explanation offered by Mr. Ecclestone as to why none of this has anything to do with tobacco advertising in Formula 1was that he made his donation to the Labour party because he was impressed by its decision to spare high earners massive tax increases. Well, he would say that, would he not? He had to say something, but he did not deal with the fact that he and the Prime Minister discussed tobacco advertising when they met. The two things do not add up. 
 People may be able to deny that donations are intended to influence sponsorship or tobacco advertising, and it would make great sense to clear up all reasonable doubts about whether we are creating another loophole through which Labour party donors can wriggle. We should exempt from subsection (3) those who make political donations, to prevent them from taking advantage of the defences in it. We should also exempt political parties and say that they cannot use those defences. If the provisions are meant to plug the loophole for other people, that is fine, but the Government must come clean. They should tell us whether they intend to use the defences in the clause and to say, ''Ah well, the odd £1 million that has come into our coffers has nothing to do with buying influence—it's just a matter of someone's high-mindedness and gratitude.'' I am not sure quite how anyone could be grateful to the Government, but I am doing my best to get my mind around what the Government are saying. 
 To avoid doubt, let us make it clear that stopping off the defences in the clause for political parties and those who make political donations would deliver the Government from temptation once and for all—they certainly cannot resist it without our help—and enable them to be as honest, decent and upright as they promised to be, because they have clearly failed in that regard. 
 Amendment No. 47 relates to subsection (4), which states that an agreement must be made 
''in the course of a business.''
 If £1 million is popped into a brown envelope and put in the Labour party's pocket, the agreement must be entered into in the course of a business to fall foul of the Bill. That explains why I and, I assume, other members of the Committee received a copy of a letter from the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile on or about 15 April. The FIA thought that I would be riveted by the letter, which is from Max Mosley to the Secretary of State for Health. The letter does not say who Max Mosley is, although he seems to figure somewhere in the story of the £1 million bung. Page 2 of his letter states: ''We''—presumably the FIA— 
''are not seeking, and have never sought, any exclusive exemption for Formula One from UK or EU efforts to ban tobacco advertising and sponsorship.''
 There we have it. The Bill says that, to qualify, an agreement must be in the course of a business, and the business interest in the £1 million bung to the Labour party in 1997 is represented by the FIA and Formula 1 racing. Yet, those bodies are saying, ''It was nowt to do with the course of business. Someone who got rich on the back of F1 just happened, in a private capacity, to give the Labour party £1 million.'' Lo and behold, 
 they are exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising. The agreement was not in the course of business, however, because the FIA says so. 
 When one reads that letter in conjunction with the Bill, one understands that the Labour party has learned nothing. It is even prepared to use the Bill to help it wriggle, wriggle, wriggle, so that people can slip it millions of pounds in return for favours if they subsequently write a letter such as the one that I quoted. The whole things stinks, and we must do something about it. 
 In your wisdom, Mr. Amess, you have decided that we should debate amendment No. 71 to clause 20 now. I hope that, when we come to consider clause 20, we shall be able to vote on the amendment as well. Clause 20 deals with the transitional arrangements. If ever an amendment was needed it is this one, because in the first instance £1 million bought a total exemption for Formula 1 from this legislation. Unfortunately for the sleazy members of this Government, they were found out, so they had to give it back. That cost them not only the first £1 million but the promise of the second £1 million. 
 The Government could not, after that, come up with a complete exemption. I am sure that that was what they wanted—it is what Mr. Ecclestone and the Prime Minister discussed in Downing street—but having been rumbled, that was no longer possible. What was the second-best option? Under the circumstances, it was a transitional period. If one cannot wriggle out of the ban altogether, let the status quo go on a bit longer—let more money be made. Who knows whether any money changed hands for this clause? Perhaps £500,000 instead of £1 million buys a later date, even if it cannot buy an exemption? I would like to hear from the Minister whether more money has changed hands for this measure. 
 If there is a good argument for a transitional arrangement for sponsorship, one way for the Government to clean up their act would be for them to accept amendment No. 71, which would make it quite clear that no one could take advantage of the transition if they or their company or organisation or anybody involved with them had made a political donation within the past 10 years—whether they had to give it back is another matter. Anybody involved in sleaze and backhanders could not take advantage of the transition. That would enable the Government to argue that there are good, sound practical reasons for a transition period. They could allay my suspicion that the real reason for the transition is to put more money into the back pockets of the Labour party's treasurer.

Evan Harris: Generally, my rule and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is not to support amendments to the Bill for reasons that I gave at the outset and on Second Reading—that although it is based on a Government Bill, the legislation was forged by my Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones in the House of Lords. However, the hon. Member for Spelthorne is to be congratulated on the amendments and the way he spoke about them. It
 is tempting to add full support to the moral argument that he so eloquently made.
 How my hon. Friend and I vote on such matters is based on the merits of each case, with the presumption that we would prefer the Bill to remain unamended. However, the hon. Gentleman made some powerful points. He might have gone on to ask whether, if the sponsored body gave the money back, that should be some form of defence for engaging in this form of sponsorship, which we rightly seek to ban. I do not think that it should be. However, some have argued that if one is found out and gives the money back, that somehow absolves one of the implications of the original sponsorship deal. That is a wholly redundant argument and I am sure that one of the hon. Gentleman's Conservative colleagues was about to make that point. 
 I know that we cannot go too far down this road, Mr. Amess, but if we want to be clear, it is about time that we ended sponsorship of political parties. There is an overlap between the issue of tobacco sponsorship and sponsorship of political parties. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to the idea that because of the difficulty of separating out payments that appear to be for political favours, for example those related to gaining exemption from bans on tobacco advertising, there is a strong argument that we should not allow companies to make such donations at all and that sponsorship of political parties should be restricted to small individual donations and state support. 
 He might also have made the point—perhaps one of his hon. Friends was about to—that it should not be a defence for a sponsoring party of tobacco advertising to say that something is okay if made public. Such sponsorship deals need to be banned, regardless of whether they are made public or done in secret. For a sport simply to say that it will publish sponsorship deals and sums of money for the first time does not seem right to the public, who are the victims of the advertising. It does not seem adequate for someone to say that they are at least letting the public know that they are the victims. 
 I am spiritually with the thrust of the amendment. Depending on what the Minister says, I think that it would be difficult for us to vote in favour of it, because it would dilute the effect of the Bill. However, I repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Spelthorne on the effective way in which the amendment was introduced. It makes an important point about tobacco sponsorship of political parties.

David Ruffley: I support the amendment. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Opposition have brought clear minds to the consideration of the drafting of the Bill. The more I have considered the drafting at various points, the more I have realised that some of it is not as clear as it should be. I have in mind our earlier exchanges about the failure of the draftsmen and draftswomen to spell out clearly in sufficient detail what a tobacco advertisement means. Subsection (2) provides yet another example of drafting that would benefit from improvements.
 Luckily, we have means whereby it can be improved, as the amendment would insert the words
''support for a political party''.
 We have heard about the lack of clarity that underlies the drafting. The words ''sponsorship agreement'' do not make it immediately clear who the parties might be, nor is it clear what the ''something'' referred to in line 33 of page 5 is. Let me venture a simple example that might be covered by the clause as drafted. A tobacco company or an associate might seek to promote its product against the thrust and purport of the Bill by sponsoring a political party. 
 Far be it from me to point fingers at the Labour party, but I believe that it has a bit of previous on receiving sponsorship at party conferences from businesses. The clause refers to businesses, using the words, 
''in the course of a business''.
 I could be wrong, but I think that the late, lamented retail chain Somerfield sponsored the passes that hung round the necks of various delegates at a Labour party conference some time ago. That is clear precedent of sponsorship. I could go on to list many examples of private enterprises and companies that sought to sponsor events held by the Labour party, before it went into—[Interruption.] Due to the chuntering from a sedentary position on the Labour Benches, I would suggest that the comments from those on our side of the Committee are very much to the point. We are on to something.

David Wilshire: I am interested in the example given by my hon. Friend. Does he think it significant that the company concerned sells tobacco?

David Ruffley: I had not thought of that, but my hon. Friend has a point.
 I do not want to stray out of order, Mr. Amess. My point is that political parties clearly receive sponsorship from businesses in this country. If the Bill is not to be defective, those who want it to be approved should give serious consideration to the means by which its defective drafting can be improved. It may be argued that that sort of thing does not really happen, that the chances of a tobacco company seeking to sponsor a political party are slim or negligible, and that BP's position is the norm among British companies. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, has said, 
''we won't fund any political activity or any political party.''
 However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that companies and organisations are already finding alternatives to clear political donations—cash for influence—and are being more crafty. As the Financial Times reported, those alternatives include influencing Government policy through 
''sponsoring think-tanks, co-opting former government advisers or employees, and by placing company directors on to public bodies, particularly task forces.''
 The reason why the issue needs to be aired in Committee is because The Times reported last week that best estimates suggest that the Labour party has a debt of almost £10 million at the same time as several 
 trade unions are reconsidering their contributions from political funds to the Labour party, allegedly in protest at policies affecting their industries. Clearly, if there is a shortfall in the coffers of the Labour party—the governing party of the moment—it is not beyond the realm of probability that the Labour party might seek to make up that shortfall by getting donations or sponsorship money from private companies, including tobacco firms. That logic is powerfully supported by the list of unions that are reconsidering their position on donating money to the Labour party. It includes the Transport and General Workers Union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the Communication Workers Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and Unison. They have either decided to reduce their donations or are, allegedly, considering doing so after consultation with their members. 
 That was reported in The Guardian on 9 March 2002, in The Sunday Times on 31 March, in The Independent on 30 March, in The Times on 25 March, and in the Daily Express on 29 March. Those reports are not idle speculations, but go to the heart of the point that we want the Government to clear up by accepting amendment No. 45. The list continues of companies or individuals whom the Labour party decides to court assiduously in many ways. It knows almost no shame in the way that it sucks up and gets around those who might donate to its cause. We know of the £32 million contract to supply smallpox vaccine—

David Amess: Order. I have been listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but I must ask him to return to the matter under consideration, which is tobacco sponsorship. Will he please leave aside those wider matters on which he seems to be concentrating?

David Ruffley: I am most grateful, Mr. Amess, for that guidance. I shall confine my remarks to the possibility created by the drafting of subsection (2), to which amendment No. 45 relates, that a tobacco company could—rather like the companies to which I referred and which I mentioned merely as examples of precedent—decide that it was worth while sponsoring a political party.
 My scenario was that a company might want to sponsor the Labour party because it is currently the governing party and might, therefore, be one of the parties to a sponsorship agreement with a tobacco company. It is also possible that the other party to the sponsorship agreement could be the Labour party. Without amendment No. 45, sponsorship of the sort that I have described could be made by a tobacco company to a political party, which would defeat the purpose of the clause and thus fatally subvert the purported aim of the Bill, which the Minister invites us to support. 
 I draw my comments to a conclusion by saying that, in my judgment and that of my hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), the defective drafting would cause a loophole. We believe that it should be closed in the 
 interests of good law-making and good legislation. If we are not here to ensure that, I venture to ask what are we here for. It is a sensible amendment, which would clean up and make clearer the drafting of subsection (2).

Yvette Cooper: The four amendments are not serious; they were tabled so that Opposition Members could indulge in the usual nonsense, which we have heard many times before. Sponsorship already includes contributions, either in money or in any other form. It does not matter who is involved, and it does not matter what form it takes; if it has the purpose or effect of promoting tobacco products, it is covered by the Bill. The Bill treats political parties in the same way as everyone else. It sets out transitional arrangements, which must be made on the merits of the case and not on the basis of donations or anything else.
 The clause allows tobacco companies and everyone else to donate to charities and good causes, or to give money to the arts or the opera—they can make donations to anything as long as it does not promote a tobacco product. If it has the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product, it is covered by clause 10(2), subject to the defences set out in clause 10(3). 
 The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon expressed the concern that it would not be sufficient simply to publish sponsorship agreements, but that the sponsorship agreements themselves should be banned. I agree. That is the effect of clause 10. Transitional arrangements are set out in clause 20, but the conclusion is clear. Any sponsorship agreement that promotes tobacco products will be covered.

Evan Harris: I take the Minister's first point about the knock-about; to a certain extent, I contributed to it. I suggest a scenario in which a tobacco company makes a donation to the Conservative party with the aim of influencing its policy on the banning of advertising of tobacco products. Albeit indirectly, that could promote tobacco products generally. Is it the Minister's understanding that such sponsorship of a political party would be covered by the Bill, regardless of whether it was given back later?

Yvette Cooper: The facts would have to be established, but the clause is clear. If the purpose of, or anything done as a result of, a sponsorship agreement has the effect of promoting a tobacco product in the United Kingdom, it would be covered by the prohibition of sponsorship.

Evan Harris: I am a little concerned about the Minister's repetition of the words ''a tobacco product''. It may have been covered elsewhere in the Bill, but I presume that that includes tobacco products generally, so that a company that wanted its advertisement to say ''Smoke cigarettes'' without mentioning its product by name would still be covered. What the Minister says is important, not least for purposes of interpretation. Is it her understanding that if a company promotes tobacco generally it will be presumed to be promoting a tobacco product specifically?

Yvette Cooper: The Bill does not define particular tobacco products but speaks of promoting ''a tobacco
 product''. To promote many tobacco products will be to promote ''a tobacco product''.

David Taylor: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, I believe that several Opposition Members who spoke on Second Reading have registered interests in relation to the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. Is it the Minister's understanding that that could constitute promotion under the Bill?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Hon. Members who speak in the House have parliamentary privilege, which is why they have to declare interests. A question mark hangs over those who are party to a sponsorship agreement; however; if they promote a tobacco product as a result of that agreement outside the House of Commons, it remains to be established whether they are covered by the Bill.
 Clause 20 sets out the long-standing Government policy as agreed with European partners that transitional arrangements should be in place to ensure that sports have time to wean themselves off tobacco sponsorship. It states that the last possible date is 1 October 2006. The long-standing Government position is shared by the European directive, which gives a deadline of July 2003 for some sports and October 2006 for global sports. That is an end date, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. If we and those sports can make the change more quickly than that, we shall do so, but we shall consult on the regulations in due course. 
 The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) spoke about contributions to ''something,'' and asked whether the wording was too broad. I think not, because the wording allows for sponsorship of tourist events, arts events, sports and many other kinds of event. The danger of trying to define the object more closely is that the clause might then exclude a particular event sponsored to promote a tobacco product. 
 I am interested by what Opposition Members say in their attempts to close loopholes in the tobacco advertising ban. However, we should remain clear in our minds about which parties have been proposing to ban the promotion of tobacco products through advertising, free distribution, coupons, brand sharing and sponsorship. The Labour party is responsible for that effort, with the support of the Liberal Democrats. Which party, on the other hand, has consistently supported the continued promotion of tobacco through advertising, sponsorship, coupons, brand sharing and so on? The Conservative party has done that. I hope that we shall be preserved from any more of the nonsense that has surrounded the politics of the debate.

David Wilshire: That last remark came as no surprise. However, I have heard not one word from the Minister condemning the sleaze surrounding the issue up to now. She made no condemnation of bungs and the buying of favours—slipping a million pounds here and a million pounds there. In addition, she refused to
 contemplate amendments designed to shut off that possibility in future.

David Ruffley: I think that the Minister said, in response to the sleaze allegations, that she had heard it all before. Does my hon. Friend agree that she has indeed heard it all before, from not simply Opposition Members but many investigative reporters, mainly from organs such as The Guardian and The Observer, which are fairly objective commentators, I should have thought?

David Wilshire: Exactly. I was coming to that.
 The Minister said that the amendments were not serious, which suggests that I was not being serious. Rarely have I been as serious as I have been in the debate on the clause, for the simple reason that the easiest way in which to undermine public confidence in politicians and the political process is through corruption, which is what the amendments are designed to stamp out. 
 It is blindingly clear that corruption has surrounded the debate. The best that the Minister can do is say, ''Look who proposed a ban.'' I am merely saying, ''Look who proposed a ban but who, in return for £1 million and the promise of another £1 million, said, 'We are proposing a ban except for the people who are giving us millions of pounds.''' If that is something to be proud of, I am glad that I am not associated with it. 
 Some people in my party may actively promote tobacco; I have no idea. I have at no time in the course of the Committee or knowingly in my life set out to encourage people to smoke. I merely speak on behalf of legitimate business doing a legal activity being allowed to carry on its business. I do not consider that to be picking on anyone. I defend people's right to continue doing things within the law, regardless of who they are, whom they voted for and what product they make. If the Government had any courage or principle in the matter, they would try to ban smoking, not go round this course pretending that they are noble while taking £1 million here and there. 
 I was and am being serious, and I resent the matter being dismissed as going round the course again. Of course the Minister has heard the argument many times, for one simple reason. Time and again, the Government take bungs from people, so we have only to mention each example once for her to hear it many times. If she wants to stop hearing the case, she must simply go to her Prime Minister and colleagues in Government and turn them into decent, honest and honourable people who do not take bungs.

David Amess: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks more closely to the amendment.

David Wilshire: I was trying to, but I was responding to the Minister, who was tempting me to expose sleaze wherever I see it, which was, I believe, a phrase that was used at one stage.
 I have spared the Liberal Democrats much comment, for which they are probably grateful. Had they been present to listen to the debate, they would be better informed, rather than not attending regularly. 
 I must take comfort from the odd gesture whenever it comes. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and 
 Abingdon says that he is with me in spirit. How I wish that he had the courage of his convictions. As well as being with me in spirit, why does he not break the habit of the Liberal Democrat party and vote for something?

Evan Harris: I was present for the entire discussion on the amendments, because they interested me. The Minister has made it clear that it is her view that the Bill already stops tobacco company sponsorship of political parties for the purpose, through policy changes—that is, indirectly—of promoting a tobacco product. That is why I do not believe that the amendments are strictly necessary. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to probe the matter to flush out the fact that the Labour party, too, runs the risk of being seen to be too close to the industry at a time when it purports to be introducing a ban.

David Wilshire: I am interested in that intervention. One of the most revealing things that I have heard in the course of today's debate was that the hon. Gentleman was present because the amendments interested him, from which I conclude that he could not care less about the rest of the Bill.

Evan Harris: It was very uninteresting.

David Wilshire: Exactly.

David Amess: Order. I again ask the hon. Member to address his remarks closely to the amendment under discussion.

David Wilshire: I am trying to do so, Mr. Amess, but my difficulty is that in the earlier debate, which you allowed because it was in order, issues were raised that needed a response. I am a little challenged to know why, if the original comment was in order, my response to it is not. However, I will not try your patience other than by making one more point.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds drew the Committee's attention to the size of the Labour party's overdraft. I shall not discuss that, but I will talk about what that means for the amendments under discussion. The amendments were made necessary by Formula 1's donation of £1 million and offer of another £1 million. That subject attaches directly to that of excluding Formula 1 from the provisions of a Bill such as the one before us. 
 Given what my hon. Friend says about the £10 million overdraft, the enormity of what happened with Formula 1 is clear. The £2 million that we know about is 20 per cent. of the Labour party's overdraft. That is not small beer, but a 20 per cent. slice of the value to which it is in hock. I am sure that the Co-op bank will be grateful—[Interruption.] I will not stray any further; I shall return exclusively to my amendments. I believe that they are important, and I am being serious about them. 
 I shall end my speech as I started it: if the Labour party has nothing to hide, if there are no more donations that we do not know about and if the Government do not intend to take money in exchange for exemptions from the Bill, why will the Government not accept the amendments? If the Government have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. The 
 amendments are trying to save the Government from themselves, and heaven only knows that they need some saving. I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment, and I commend it to the Committee.

David Amess: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he wishes to press only amendment No. 45 to a Division, or whether he intends that the Committee should vote also on amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 71 when we come to them?

David Wilshire: I wish to vote on the amendments that attach to clause 10, and if the procedures of the Committee allow us to vote on amendment No. 70 as well, I shall seek to do so.

David Amess: Yes, they certainly do.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 5, line 35, at end insert—
'(2A) No offence is committed under subsection (1) if— 
 (a) the business referred to in subsection (2) is part of the tobacco trade, 
 (b) the sponsorship agreement is for the purposes of that trade, 
 (c) the purpose or effect of anything done under the agreement is to promote a tobacco product solely to persons who— 
 (i) are engaged in, or employed by, a business which is also part of that trade, and 
 (ii) fall within subsection (2AA). 
 (2AA) A person falls within this subsection if— 
 (a) he is responsible for making decisions on behalf of the business referred to in subsection (2A)(c)(i) about the purchase of tobacco products which are to be sold in the course of that business, 
 (b) he occupies a position in the management structure of the business in question which is equivalent in seniority to, or of greater seniority than, that of any such person, or 
 (c) he is the person who, or is a member of the board of directors or other body of persons (however described) which, is responsible for the conduct of the business in question.'.
 The amendment would make a substantial addition after line 35, and deals with the issue of internal trade sponsorship schemes. I understand that it is not intended to exclude or penalise such schemes, but I fear that, as currently framed, the Bill would do so. We seek to make it explicit that such promotions and business should be exempted if within the trade. The Government have said that if tobacco advertising and promotion are confined within the trade they would not be offences. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment—it is not too late in the day for her to concede something. Such tobacco advertisements are specifically permitted by 
 clause 4(1)(a), and free distributions are specifically permitted under clause 9(3). However, clause 10 as does not permit sponsorship agreements when 
''the purpose or effect of anything done as a result of the agreement is to promote a tobacco product''
 within the trade. That is counter to what the Government intended. 
 I gather that when a similar amendment was discussed in the other place, a short discussion centred on private events and the giving of tobacco products in gestures of hospitality, so the point of the amendment was missed by the Government. However, there are sponsorship agreements in which the ''something''—as the Bill calls it, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds earlier highlighted—that is sponsored is within the trade and the sponsorship agreement has a restricted purpose. The amendment therefore maintains consistency in the Bill's approach to advertising and promotion confined within the tobacco trade. 
 The amendment has real and practical relevance. Sponsorship agreements exist. Events within the trade such as conferences, exhibitions and awards are sponsored and the agreements should be allowed to continue even when they have the purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product, because they are conducted within the trade by people fully cognisant of that trade. 
 It has been suggested that such a provision is not necessary. The Bill would not prohibit sponsorship agreements within the trade in the name of a company rather than a tobacco brand, because they would not be promoting a brand. That is to miss the point of the amendment and to ignore the fact that some tobacco brands share the name of the company manufacturing the brand—Benson and Hedges, Rothmans and Lambert and Butler spring to mind, but there are others. It would be unacceptable for such brands to be afforded different treatment under the Bill. 
 We are told that the Government do not intend that the Bill should interfere with advertising and promotion within the trade. Sponsorship agreements that are confined within the trade, as the amendment provides, should be permitted. The amendment makes that clear. We seek to make more explicit what was intended but would not be permitted by the clause as currently drafted. It is a helpful amendment, and I trust that the Minister will deal with it accordingly.

Yvette Cooper: The Government oppose the amendment because it excludes from the ban on sponsorship those sponsorship agreements that are directed at persons in the tobacco trade. The Bill as drafted enables companies to sponsor events and use their company name as long as the company's products are not given any promotion in return. A balance has been struck because the Bill permits commercial dealings between companies and for the tobacco trade to carry on its business. The Bill also enables companies to sponsor events or to make donations to good causes. That is their entitlement. However, the Bill does not permit the tobacco trade to
 promote its products by means of sponsorship agreements.
 The amendment would allow a tobacco company to sponsor a golf tournament or polo match to which those invited were commercial buyers of tobacco products. Such activities are not appropriate or necessary for the tobacco trade to carry on its lawful business and are not comparable with the exceptions under clauses 4 and 9. Exceptions from the general ban exist to permit the continuance of ordinary trade. It is not necessary to allow greater sponsorship than would ordinarily be needed. That would potentially open further loopholes. 
 The Bill bans the promotion of tobacco products through sponsorship. It is not about preventing organisations from discussing the merits of smoking. There should be a broader exemption for those in the tobacco trade.

Andrew Hunter: Will the Minister deal with tobacco brand products that share the name of the company? There is an anomaly as some companies will be able to advertise a product because it has the same name.

Yvette Cooper: That is why it is so important that the Bill includes ''effect'' and not simply ''purpose''. I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, but if the effect of a company promoting its name is also to promote a tobacco product, that falls within the scope of the Bill. The Government oppose the amendment.

Tim Loughton: I am disappointed. The amendment is serious and detailed but I do not think that the Minister has dealt with my point. She seemed to say that it is not appropriate or necessary for a tobacco company to carry on its business by hosting or sponsoring a polo match or a golf event exclusively for members of the tobacco trade. I am not sure that that is for her to judge because it is an internal matter. The guests present at such an event would all be members of the trade, who make a living out of producing or selling cigarettes and know the implications of the products with which they deal.
 Such people are not impressionable in terms of smoking more or taking up smoking in the first place. The Minister said that it is not appropriate or necessary for a tobacco company to host a trade event in the name of one of its products. On what basis does she make that claim? As I have said, such events—they are perfectly legitimate—already exist, but under the Bill, they would be curtailed. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is admitting to that, because I was rather confused by her answer. I agree that various general exceptions have been made, but I am still unclear. Is she saying that a Benson and Hedges polo tournament, where all the invitees were involved in the tobacco trade, would no longer be allowed to take place? If so, that goes against the thrust of the notes to clauses and various parts of the Bill. I am unclear whether that is the case, so I wish the Minister to state whether such an event could happen.

Yvette Cooper: Let us imagine that the players at that Benson and Hedges polo tournament wore white shirts with a flash across—or whatever form of brand
 colouring—and that the local newspaper decided to report the tournament, and to include a photograph. It would be perfectly legitimate for such a newspaper to report a news event such as the victory of the local Benson and Hedges team over the Imperial team, or whomever else they might be playing. That report would not be an advertisement, but it could lead to what began as a sponsorship event within the course of trade, to have wider consequences with regard to the promotion of a tobacco product.
 Such events might have an impact beyond that which is intended in the course of trade, even though that is not usually the case. Therefore, as has been said, the principle of proportionality arises. Given the potential for this kind of event to spill over and have wider effects than intended, is it so essential to the legitimate pursuit of trade that it should be given a special exception? We have allowed exceptions in earlier clauses, but there is not a sufficiently strong case to allow one here, given the potential for a wider impact.

Tim Loughton: Again, the tobacco company should be able to decide how it wants to promote its product within the trade. The Bill still allows that.
 To use the Minister's example, if cameras were banned from such an event, and the press reported it only in words—not in pictures—what possible detrimental effect could that have outside the trade? It is, effectively, a closed event.

Yvette Cooper: If it were the Silk Cut team or the Marlboro team, it would be a way of promoting the product.
 I accept that these are hypothetical examples. However, because it is possible to come up with hypothetical examples, there must be good reasons to permit exceptions, and there is not a sufficiently strong case to grant an exception in this instance. 
 We talked about communications between organisations in the course of trade when we discussed earlier clauses. For example, with regard to clause 4(1)(a), we talked about communication made in the course of a business, which clearly is an important part of continuing that trade, so we set out an exemption. It is not clear to me that the kind of sponsorship exemption that we are currently discussing is crucial with regard to the need of the industry to communicate and to continue its legitimate trade. Therefore, given the potential for some of these examples to have a wider impact, there is not sufficient reason to accept the amendment
.

Tim Loughton: It appears that we shall make no further progress on this matter.
 The Minister is encroaching on telling the tobacco companies what their internal business is. It is my understanding that that was not the Bill's intention. The events that she now judges not to be appropriate or necessary to the trade commonly take place, and there are easy ways of ensuring that any impressionable material—in photographic form, or whatever—does not leak out from such an event into the public domain, and thereby entice a 14-year-old youth to take up smoking. 
 We might wish to return to the matter later. It is yet another issue that has not been properly resolved in Committee, will lead to yet more confusion in the trade about what it can and cannot do, and may lead to legal challenge, too, if the Benson and Hedges polo tournament goes ahead and seems to overstep the mark as the Minister regards it. I do not believe that we can proceed any further by arguing at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 5, line 43, at end insert— 
'(c) these defences shall not be available to a political party.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 5, line 46, at end insert— 
'(5) The defence referred to in subsection (4) shall not be available to a political party'.—[Mr. Wilshire].
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Evan Harris: I have been reflecting on my exchange with the Minister—as, perhaps, has she. I wanted to give her the opportunity to make clear what is banned, rather than what might be legal. However much I deprecate the sponsorship of tobacco, it seems legitimate—as the Conservative party might agree—that under current law the tobacco industry might want to donate to the Conservative party in order to argue for policy change. That is in the nature of a democracy, as we have what I consider to be an unsatisfactory system in which political donations from big businesses are legitimate. However, I hope that it would not be legitimate for tobacco companies to pay money to effect a policy change that would
 allow the advertising of a tobacco product. It would be useful if the Minister would make that clear.

Yvette Cooper: The prohibition of sponsorship is about preventing the promotion of tobacco products, regardless of whether companies are party to a sponsorship agreement. It will not stop freedom of speech in this House or elsewhere on the subject of smoking, in general. It is right that the clause should stop the promotion of particular tobacco products or sponsorship agreements at a party conference, for example, that might promote a particular product. In any case, it would be a matter of fact to be determined whether a particular policy was promoting an individual tobacco product and was the result of a sponsorship agreement or whether individual Members of Parliament or politicians were exercising free speech about broader issues. The Bill is not about restricting free speech, but about stopping the promotion of tobacco products, whether through sponsorship, brand sharing, coupons or advertisements.

Evan Harris: It is good news that the Bill will protect free speech but will ban the advertising of specific tobacco products. Now we just have to wait for provisions to be introduced that will remove the sponsorship of political parties by business interests to avoid not only sleaze, but the appearance of sleaze.
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Transitional provisions: sponsorship

Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 11, line 2, at end insert 
', provided that no party to such a sponsorship agreement has made a donation to a political party within the last 10 years.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: I am pleased that we have made it to clause 20, because I have a lengthy discourse to make about the Embassy world professional darts
 championship and the enormous disbenefit that it will be put to under the Bill. I have less than two minutes in which to deliver my discourse, let alone discuss the remaining 10 clauses, amendments and the new clause. However, I shall have a stab at it and see what I can come up with. If I cannot complete my discourse, I have no doubt that we can return to it at length on Report.
 Clause 20 is a meaty clause. It is controversial and deals with the transitional provisions of sponsorship that refer specifically to the Government's anointed favourite sport of Formula 1 racing. 
 It is intended that the Bill will come into force two months after Royal Assent and that its provisions will have an effect on tobacco manufacturers, retailers and so on. A further three months will be allowed before the bringing into force of regulations that govern advertising within retail outlets, impact promotion schemes and certain direct marketing contracts—except for Formula 1 racing. 
 In another place, the Minister confirmed that the Government intend to stay with the broad outline of their thinking and that the special provisions of clause 19 should remain available to ''exceptional global events''. They are defined as taking place in at least two continents and three countries, with sponsorship in excess of £2.5 million per annum. All other sponsorship agreements should be banned from an earlier date—that is, 2003. That singles out Formula 1 racing, which is not exactly a sport bereft of cash. Did you know, Mr. Amess, that it is probably the most costly and richest sport in the world? It certainly does not need any assistance from the Bill. There are only 11 Formula 1 teams, each of which has to deposit a $48 million bond to participate in the race. 
 It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [7 May], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 11 to 16, 18, 19 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Commencement, short title and extent

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (6).—[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at two minutes past Seven o'clock.